SAMARITAN NEWSLETTER – June 2, 2025

SAMARITAN PROJECTS LLC

4415 Gladstone Blvd.

Kansas City, MO 64123

The SAMARITAN-PROJECT prepares post-conviction and compassionate release motions under the direction of Attorney Tom Norrid. The Project retrieves documents at reasonable prices. The Project newsletter reports every winning published district court and court of appeals case for the week in review. Our website – SAMARITANPROJECTS.COM is available to your family and friends.

CR.RIS/FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCES/REHABILITATION/DISPARITY. The District of Maryland granted in part a CR.RIS motion in United States v. Taylor, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100467 (D. Md. May 27, 2025). Taylor pled guilty to an Information charging him with possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 USC 924(c). Pursuant to 11(c)(1)(C) defendant stipulated to a sentence of 120 months. Taylor sought compassionate release on the ground the caregiver of his minor child has died and he is the only available caregiver for his child. Taylor also contends that "drug trafficking is not a crime of violence" and therefore he "should not have the 924c.” The court agreed with the Government that defendant's contention the 924(c) conviction is based on an improper predicate does not fall within the ambit of the compassionate release statue. M.T. is a minor; she is defendant's child; her mother died. Defendant has established an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release. The defendant made strides towards rehabilitation. Moreover, defendant has already served a sentence longer than any prior sentence he ever served. The court believed a sentence reduction of 12 months was appropriate. Defendant's sentence was reduced from 120 months to 108 months with credit for time served.

CR.RIS/CONCURRENT WITH STATE SENTENCE. The Southern District of Ohio ordered a state sentence to run concurrent with federal sentence in United States v. Jack Morris, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99925 (S.D. Ohio May 27, 2025). Pursuant to a compassionate release motion the court ordered that Morris' sentence in this matter be served concurrently with his state court sentence in case 11CR3506 in Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, and his current service time credited accordingly by designating the non-federal institution(s) in which Morris served his state sentence for service of the federal sentence imposed in this case.

CR.RIS/MENTAL HEALTH/REHABILITATION/MEDICAL. The District of Maine granted a CR.RIS motion in United States v. Wayne Collamore, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97500 (D. Maine May 22, 2025). Collamore is 75 years old and serving 210 months. Collamore pled guilty to escape in violation of 18 USC 751(a), and to possessing a firearm as a prohibited person in violation of 18 USC 922(g)(1) and 924(e). Defendant served three tours in Vietnam. Collamore took responsibility for his crimes and acknowledged he needed mental health treatment. Collamore has shown his PTSD symptoms require "specialized" treatment and his need for specialized mental health treatment is similar in gravity to the other circumstances enumerated by the Policy Statement. Even if mental health treatment exists for Collamore in prison, the care available through the VA's intensive inpatient and outpatient programs—geared specifically toward people with trauma from combat exposure—exceeds anything available in federal custody. Collamore's need for specialized PTSD treatment contributes to the extraordinary and compelling nature of his case, a conclusion consistent with precedent from other jurisdictions. Collamore has multiple documented diagnoses including hyperlipidemia, hypertension, kidney disease, hypothyroidism, and testicular dysfunction. Collamore's conditions are "similar in gravity" to those that the Policy Statement recognizes as extraordinary and compelling grounds for release. USSG 1B1.13(b)(5). Sentence reduced to time served.

CR.RIS/REOPEN/NEVER RECEIVED GOVERNMENT OPPOSITION. United States v. Rasco, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100409 (W.D. La. May 23, 2025). Rasco filed a motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 USC 3582(c)(1)(A). The Government filed its opposition. After the Government filed its opposition, Rasco filed one additional memorandum in support of his motion for compassionate release. The Court issued a ruling denying Rasco's motion. The Court is in receipt of a letter filed by Rasco alleging he did not receive a copy of the Government's opposition to his compassionate release motion, and therefore did not have an opportunity to "rebut[] the government's response, if necessary." It appears the Government attempted to serve a copy of its opposition to the incorrect address. The Government's certificate of service provides that the opposition was served to Rasco via mail at "USP Pollack" in Beaumont, Texas. The Court stresses to counsel for the Government the profound importance of ensuring petitioners in criminal cases are properly served with court filings. Given the Government's error, the Court found it in the interest of justice to allow Rasco an opportunity to file a reply. Rasco's reply should only address those arguments raised in the Government's opposition; it should not raise new arguments. It was ordered that the Government properly serve Rasco with a copy of its opposition on or before May 29, 2025. Rasco may file a reply brief in response to the Government's opposition on or before June 26, 2025.

APPEAL/CORAM NOBIS. The Eleventh Circuit remanded Sonny Ramdeo v. United States, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 12265 (11th Cir. May 20, 2025). Ramdeo was the payroll director for Promise Healthcare and he recommended the company hire PayServ Tax, which he falsely claimed was a subsidiary of Ceridian Corporation. In reality PayServ was Ramdeo’s own company and he diverted over $20 million from Promise to fund a charter airline service. After Promise’s auditors discovered discrepancies, Ramdeo was arrested and pled guilty to wire fraud and money laundering. He was sentenced to 20 years and ordered to pay $21,442,173 in restitution. Ramdeo challenged his conviction and restitution amount on appeal which was unsuccessful. He then sought a writ of audita querela to contest the restitution amount which the district court recharacterized as a petition for coram nobis and denied. The Eleventh Circuit declined to address the merits of his claim. Ramdeo also filed a 28 USC 2255 petition which the district court denied as frivolous and meritless. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed this decision. Ramdeo later filed a pro se petition for a writ of error coram nobis arguing ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and new financial evidence. The district court denied the petition stating that prisoners in federal custody are ineligible for coram nobis relief. The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and determined that being in custody does not categorically bar a petitioner from seeking coram nobis relief for non-custodial aspects of their sentence, such as restitution. The court vacated the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings emphasizing that coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy available when no other remedy is available and the petitioner presents sound reasons for not seeking relief earlier.

APPEAL/RESENTENCE/ERLINGER. The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Sergio Hood, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 12332 (11th Cir. May 21, 2025). This case was returned to the court on remand from the Supreme Court. Hood appealed his convictions and 262-month sentence for possession of ammunition by a felon, obstruction of justice, and tampering with a witness. He argued the district court’s determinations related to his prior convictions were error and his conviction and sentence are unconstitutional. In our previous panel opinion, the court affirmed Hood’s convictions and sentence. Hood petitioned for a writ of certiorari which the Supreme Court granted in light of its intervening decision in Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024). The court reconsidered Hood’s appeal with the benefit of guidance in Erlinger. The court affirmed Hood’s conviction but vacated his sentence under Erlinger and remanded for resentencing.

APPEAL/RESENTENCE. The Tenth Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Omari Davis, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 12290 (10th Cir. May 21, 2025). Davis was convicted in 2019 in Colorado for possession with intent to distribute an imitation controlled substance which turned out to be baking soda. This offense is classified as a level-4 drug felony, the lowest level in Colorado, with a presumptive sentencing range of six months to one year. However, under certain aggravating circumstances the sentence could be extended to a maximum of two years. Davis was sentenced to two years of probation with no aggravating circumstances identified or admitted. Davis was indicted on two counts of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon under 18 USC 922(g)(1). Davis moved to dismiss the charges, arguing his 2019 conviction did not qualify as a predicate offense under 922(g)(1) because it carried a presumptive maximum sentence of one year. The district court denied concluding Colorado courts have the discretion to impose a sentence greater than the presumptive range. The Tenth Circuit held Davis's 2019 conviction did not meet the prior-conviction requirement of 922(g)(1) because there were no aggravating circumstances that could have permitted a sentence exceeding one year. The court emphasized that under Colorado law a sentence in the aggravated range requires specific findings of aggravating circumstances which were absent in Davis's case. The Tenth Circuit vacated Davis's conviction under 922(g)(1).

APPEAL/ACCA/ERLINGER. The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Jermaine Kimbrough, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 12319 (6th Cir. May 21, 2025). Kimbrough pled guilty to four criminal offenses related to carjacking and firearms. At sentencing the court determined Kimbrough had three prior violent felonies committed on different occasions making him subject to an enhanced sentence under the ACCA. The district court following then-controlling Sixth Circuit precedent decided Kimbrough's two aggravated burglary offenses occurred on different occasions thus applying the ACCA enhancement. Kimbrough objected, arguing that a jury should make this determination. The court overruled his objection and sentenced him to 148 months for Counts One, Two, and Four, to be served concurrently, and 84 months for Count Three, to be served consecutively. The Supreme Court's decision in Erlinger v. United States established it is error for a judge, rather than a jury, to determine whether prior offenses occurred on different occasions for ACCA purposes. The Sixth Circuit found this error was not harmless and vacated Kimbrough's sentence on Counts One, Two, and Four and remanded for further proceedings. The court noted the sentence for Count One exceeds the statutory maximum and must be corrected on remand. The court left Kimbrough's double jeopardy argument for the district court to address if the Government seeks an ACCA-enhanced sentence on remand.